Today Anwar Ibrahim, a former deputy prime minister, languishes in jail; his wife without a husband, his children without their father, and his cause no further ahead. His supporters of course blame 'the system', in particular, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

I suggest differently. Lest readers think I am benefitting from hindsight, rest assured that these thoughts were penned long before Anwar's downfall. But first, some personal prejudices out of the way.

Anwar never impressed me.

His tenure at the Muslim Youth Movement is such that the organisation is now a mere shadow of its former self. It was not so much leadership as a one-man show. The quality of our schools and universities declined precipitously when he was education minister.

His brief performance as acting prime minister in early 1997 was telling. To endear himself to Muslims, Anwar tried to force non-Muslim students to take courses in Islam. His non-Muslim supporters now conveniently forget this.

Conflicting agenda

Long before Anwar's firing, Mahathir expressed none too subtly his disdain and contempt for his erstwhile deputy. One had to be extremely dull not to read the signals.

At the 1996 Umno General Assembly, amidst swirling rumours that Anwar would challenge Mahathir, the prime minister pointedly reminded Anwar (and everyone else) that should he (Mahathir) lose, that would be no loss. After all he had been at it for over 15 years.

But if Anwar were to lose, that would be the end of him politically. That message must have registered with Anwar then, for Mahathir was not challenged. Too bad that Anwar forgot that fatherly advice so soon afterward.

During the Asian economic mess of 1997, there were conflicting messages coming from these two top leaders. This was no way to lead a nation in severe crisis.

Anwar forgot an elementary precept of governance. The party and country elected Mahathir, and he in turn appointed Anwar. If the No 2 profoundly disagrees with his superior, he should do what is in the best tradition of parliamentary democracy - resign. No chief executive would tolerate a subordinate with a conflicting agenda. The ship of state can have but one skipper.

Romantic illusion

In his recounting of the final confrontation with Mahathir, Anwar pleaded for time to consult his wife. One would have thought that he would have sought wider counsel before making what turned out to be such a fateful decision.

Imagine had Anwar considered what was best for the nation. Would his refusal to resign, and the consequent political upheaval it precipitated, be good for the country? Would it have been better for him to withdraw quietly and spare the nation (and himself) the subsequent grief? Now of course the consequences of his decision are obvious.

Had Anwar resigned, and did it with class, the world would never have known Judge Augustine Paul or ex-police chief Abdul Rahim Noor. On resigning, Anwar could heap generous tribute on his mentor and respectfully express his extreme regret in not being able to support Mahathir, carefully drawing the line between the man and his policies.

Using the poetic power and cutting subtlety of the Malay language, Anwar could effusively praise the man but damn his policies. Anwar could then use his supposedly wide contacts in the West to secure for himself a lucrative position with the World Bank or some foundation.

He could come to America, earn some real money, and experience first hand life in the mecca of free enterprise. A stint in the West might disabuse Anwar of his romantic illusion of radical Islamism, or perhaps having to struggle to meet his mortgages, health insurance, and other mundane details of life under capitalism, he may be totally disillusioned with the wonders of free market.

In Malaysia and especially for Malays, these are taken care of by a benevolent government. In either case, the experience would have broadened his perspective.

Islamic scholar?

Meanwhile, while enjoying the comforts of America, he could articulate his vision for Malaysia: how he would deal with such issues as inequities between and within races, special privileges, crony capitalism, pervasive corruption, and the role of Islam in a plural society.

That is, publish his manifesto. With the help of his ghostwriters, he could easily crank out a volume in no time. Then a year later returned home triumphantly, in time for the Umno leadership conference.

Having been absent for a while, Malaysian hearts would have grown fonder for him. Imagine the reaction! Umno and the country would be electrified. Mahathir's carefully crafted succession plans would be in shambles.

More significantly, he could have been a severe and effective critic of Mahathir, being safely beyond the reaches of the ISA.

Even after he was fired, Anwar could still redeem himself. Instead of his high profile ugly demonstrations and equally pompous Permatang Pauh declaration (little of that is heard of these days) he could have quietly formed a political party and prepared for the next election. There was ample time.

Alas, such a course of action would be out of character for Anwar. He's for confrontation and destruction, not cooperation and creation, as exemplified by his student days. To Malaysians yearning for new and enlightened leadership, Anwar is but a mirage, a cruel hoax.

Flawed character

Still, some unanswered questions remain. How did Anwar manage to hoodwink Mahathir (and others) for so long? And, why did our system allow such a flawed character to rise so high and so fast?

Disaster awaits when style prevails over substance. It is a sad commentary that our society considers someone who liberally quotes the Koran an Islamic 'scholar'; peppers his speech with famous quotes, an 'intellectual'; and hires a platoon of speech writers, a heavyweight 'thinker'.

Similarly, we are easily mesmerised when someone dons green turbans and thick Arabic robes, confusing that with piety; and modernity when he has a fondness for Armani suits. Never mind that both attires are ill-suited for Malaysia's hot humid climate!

Whether Anwar recovers from his present travail is of utmost importance to him and his family, but is inconsequential to the rest of Malaysia. In my opening sentence I added the parenthesis, a former deputy prime minister. I had to, for he is fast becoming an 'Anwar, who?'